Wrongful Death

Supreme Court Rules that Federal Law Preempts State Wrongful Death Lawsuit Over Asbestos Exposure: Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products Corp.

October 12, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The U.S. Supreme Court recently considered an appeal of a products liability and wrongful death claim arising from alleged asbestos exposure in railroad equipment. The decedent worked in locomotive repair for decades and died of cancer years later. The defendants argued that the federal Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) preempted the plaintiffs’ state tort claims, and the trial court and appellate court agreed. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts in a 6-3 decision in Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products Corp., 132 S. Ct. 1261 (2012).

The decedent, George Corson, worked for the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad for about twenty-seven years, from 1947 to 1974. His job as a welder and machinist involved locomotive brakeshoe installation and insulation stripping on locomotive boilers. He allegedly came into contact with asbestos during this time. He was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in 2005.

Corson and his wife sued fifty-nine defendants, including Railroad Friction Products Corporation (RFPC) and Viad Corp in a Pennsylvania state court in 2007. The lawsuit alleged that RFCP distributed brakeshoes, that Viad was the successor-in-interest to a manufacturer and distributor of locomotives and locomotive engine parts, and that all the products in question contained asbestos. The plaintiffs asserted products liability causes of action for defective design and failure to warn. When Corson died, his executor, Gloria Kurns, joined as a plaintiff with Corson’s wife.

Washington DC District Court Enters Judgments Against Iran in Two Cases Brought Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act

September 28, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia recently entered judgments in several lawsuits against the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security (MOIS). The plaintiffs were victims of the 1983 U.S. Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, Lebanon, in which the government of Iran and the MOIS were implicated. The lawsuits were brought under an amendment to the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act (FSIA), which provides a federal cause of action for injuries against a foreign state designated as a sponsor of terrorism. The court awarded damages to the plaintiffs in both cases, although the question of recovering damages from the defendants remains highly unsettled.

FSIA, which first became law in 1976, gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over most civil claims against foreign states, but applies many of the principles of sovereign immunity. This is the legal doctrine that a government entity may not be sued unless it has waived immunity. It applies in lawsuits against city, county, or state governments, where a claimant must follow steps set out by statute before filing suit. People claiming damages for injuries caused by foreign states have generally been barred from relief by this doctrine. Federal courts applied FSIA in blocking claims for damages caused by the September 11 terror attacks in In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 538 F.3d 71 (2nd Cir. 2008), and a 2003 terror attack in Riyadh in Heroth v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 565 F.Supp.2d 59 (D.D.C. 2008).

Congress added an exception to FSIA in 1996, with amendments added in 2008, for foreign states designated as “state sponsors of terrorism” either at the time of the alleged injury or as a result of the alleged injury. The foreign state must also remain designated as such at the time a claimant files suit. The exception applies to claims for personal injuries or wrongful death resulting from acts such as hostage taking, torture, sabotage, or the support of such acts by the foreign state.

Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Claim for Injury Benefits Under Vaccine Act

September 4, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The estate of a woman who died from vaccine-related complications may recover death benefits, but not injury benefits, under the federal Vaccine Act, according to a ruling by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Griglock v. Secretary of Health and Human Services. A Special Master found that the woman’s death was attributable to an influenza vaccination, allowing the death benefits claim to proceed, but also found that the statute of limitations for an injury benefits claim had expired. The Court of Federal Claims and the Federal Circuit affirmed that decision.

The decedent, Sophie Griglock, received a vaccination for influenza on October 6, 2005, when she was seventy years old. In late November 2005, a neurologist diagnosed her with Guillian-Barré Syndrome (GBS), a disorder in which the immune system attacks the nervous system. It can cause paralysis and death due to an inability to breathe. Griglock died of GBS-related respiratory failure on May 11, 2007.

Griglock’s estate filed a petition for compensation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) in April 2009. HHS did not contest the question of whether the vaccine caused Griglock’s GBS. It recommended death benefits of $250,000, the maximum amount allowed by the Vaccine Act. The estate also requested injury benefits under the Vaccine Act to compensate for Griglock’s medical expenses. The case went before a Special Master, who determined that the vaccine caused Griglock’s GBS and her GBS-related death. While this gave the estate standing to claim injury benefits, the Special Master determined that the claim, filed in 2009, was barred by the statute of limitations.

Wrongful Death Lawsuit Alleges Medical Negligence and Intentional Torts Against Doctor

August 16, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A husband’s wrongful death lawsuit alleges that his wife’s doctor caused her death last year by prescribing a wide array of psychotropic medications. The suit further claims that the doctor defrauded her of nearly half a million dollars, which she contributed towards his research funding while under the influence of these medications. The two types of claims, brought in a single lawsuit, raise uncomfortable questions about the doctor/patient relationship.

Phyllis Harvey, described as a philanthropist who formed a foundation with her husband, Brian Harvey, to fund scholarships and engage in other charitable activities, died last year at the age of 59. She reportedly had a history of mental illness and alcoholism, and was diagnosed in 1999 with possible bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or early dementia. She sought treatment from Dr. Alexander Bystritsky, a physician at the University of California, Los Angeles, beginning in 2004. Dr. Bystritsky allegedly put her on a regimen of multiple psychotropic medications, even though the 1999 diagnoses were never fully confirmed. Her prescribed medications included the anti-psychotic drug Seroquel and the anti-anxiety sedative Ativan.

Washington DC Wrongful Death Lawsuit Filed by Families of U.S. Citizens Killed in Drone Strikes

July 25, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A wrongful death lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeks damages from the federal government for the allegedly unlawful killings of United States citizens abroad. The families of several people killed overseas by unmanned drone aircraft are claiming violations of the decedents’ constitutional rights as U.S. citizens. Unlike many wrongful death lawsuits, this suit alleges violations of statutory and constitutional rights, rather than negligence, by the government. The lawsuit is sure to generate public controversy, particularly since the government asserted national security reasons for the drone attacks.

Nasser al-Aulaqi (sometimes spelled al-Awlaki) and Sarah Khan, with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), filed suit against federal government officials, including Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director David Petraeus, in mid-July 2012. Their complaint alleges that the federal government has engaged in targeted killings of suspected terrorists abroad since 2001. Anwar al-Aulaqi, an American citizen living in Yemen, was added to a “kill list” in late 2009 or early 2010, based on suspicion of terrorist activity or support.

On September 30, 2011, the complaint says, unmanned drones operated by the CIA and the Department of Defense fired missiles at a vehicle in Yemen containing Anwar al-Aulaqi. The blast killed al-Aulaqi and another U.S. citizen, Samir Khan. Another drone strike on October 14, 2011, also allegedly authorized by the defendants, killed at least seven people at a restaurant in Yemen, including another U.S. citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi’s 16 year-old son Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi.

Washington DC Injury Prevention Ranks High in National Survey

June 14, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A study of injury-related deaths conducted by a national healthcare advocacy group, the Trust for America’s Health (TFAH), ranks the fifty states and the District of Columbia based on ten “key indicators.” These key indicators relate to laws, regulations, and initiatives undertaken by state governments. According to TFAH, they represent the effectiveness of state efforts to prevent fatalities due to injuries.

Washington DC scored highly in the study, with seven of the ten key factors. In terms of total number of injury-related deaths per 100,000 population, the District of Columbia did not fare as well compared to many states, with a rate slightly above the national average. The study’s authors stress that they cannot say with certainty why any one state has a lower rate of injury-related fatalities than any other state, but their key factor analysis offers a good set of guidelines for assessing state efforts to promote injury prevention.

TFAH’s study, prepared with the assistance of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a philanthropic organization that supports health care, examined statistics for injury-related deaths over the past twelve or more years. It drew a distinction between injury-related deaths and deaths from both communicable and noncommunicable disease, calling injury-related deaths a serious but largely hidden public health crisis. The study divided injuries into several categories based on the type and cause of the injury, including vehicular accidents, falls, blunt-force impacts, cutting or piercing wounds, burns, poisoning, drowning or suffocation, gunshot wounds, and “unclassified.” TFAH developed its list of key factors based largely on the cause of injury, such as accident or intentional violence.

The Death of a Young Baseball Player and the Lack of Statistics on Youth Sports Injuries

May 10, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The tragic death of a 12 year-old Chicago-area boy in a baseball-related accident has brought attention to a lack of data tracking regarding sports injuries in children. Although researchers have extensively catalogued injuries in athletes at the high school level and up, no one is collecting information on injuries to younger athletes. Sports can be a cause of serious injuries in children, so having access to information and statistics could help not only parents, but equipment manufacturers assess risks and develop safer products.

A 12 year-old boy from Oswego, Illinois, Eric Lederman, died in April from an injury caused by a baseball hitting him in the neck. Lederman was playing catch with a teammate on the side of the field while warming up for a game on Thursday, April 12. The ball struck him in the neck, reportedly hitting his carotid artery. He immediately collapsed and was taken to the hospital. He was pronounced dead at the hospital just after 8:00 p.m. The cause of death was determined to be a cerebral hemorrhage caused by blunt-force trauma, and was declared an accident.

DC Council Considers Bill Extending Statute of Limitations for Wrongful Death Claims

April 12, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

A bill pending in the District of Columbia Council would extend the statute of limitations for filing a Washington DC wrongful death lawsuit. Known as the “Wrongful Death Act of 2012” (WDA), the bill would change the statute from one year to two years. Councilmembers Phil Mendelson and Marion Barry introduced the bill on March 6, 2012. The bill has been referred to the Council’s Judiciary Committee and is awaiting a hearing. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer, in a letter dated March 19 (PDF file), confirmed that sufficient funds are available through fiscal year 2015 to allow the bill’s implementation.

According to the Blog of Legal Times, an attorney struggling with the tight time constraints of a one-year statute of limitations proposed the bill to Councilmember Barry’s office. Tennessee is reportedly the only other jurisdiction in the United States with a one-year statute of limitations for wrongful death claims. Subject to certain restrictions, Maryland has a three-year statute, and Virginia’s is two years. DC’s one-year statute dates back to the late 19th century.

The District of Columbia Official Code, in Section 16-2702, requires a claimant to bring a wrongful death lawsuit within one year from the date of death. From the standpoint of a personal injury attorney preparing a case for litigation, this does not allow a great deal of time to investigate the facts of the case and develop legal theories of negligence and liability. A wrongful death claim is essentially a claim for negligence, in which the injuries asserted include both the decedent’s death and the claimant’s loss of the decedent’s income, support, and companionship. These damages can be very difficult to evaluate and prove, particularly with a short time limit.

One lawsuit mentioned in relation to the WDA and the relatively brief time period to file a wrongful death claim is Nardyne Jefferies’ claim against the District of Columbia for the death of her daughter, Brishell Jones. Jones was murdered on March 30, 2010 in a mass shooting on South Capitol Street that left three people dead and six wounded. One year to the date after the shootings, Jefferies filed her wrongful death suit.

Jefferies’ lawsuit names the District of Columbia and various agencies and officials as defendants. Because the shooters were known to the DC criminal and juvenile justice systems, the lawsuit alleges that the government should have known that they posed a danger to public safety. Jefferies alleges fourteen separate counts, including several negligence-based counts, alleged violations of District and federal statutes and regulations, and violations of constitutional due process and equal protection. the defendants removed the case to federal court in June 2011, where it is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Families of Virginia Tech Shooting Victims Win Trial but Face Cap on Damages

April 6, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The families of two women killed during a 2007 shooting rampage on the Virginia Tech campus received a jury award of $4 million each in their claims against the university for negligence. The jury found that the university negligently delayed warnings about Seung-Hui Cho, who had shot and killed two people in a campus dormitory two-and-a-half hours before embarking on the deadliest shooting spree in modern American history. Cho ultimately killed thirty-two people before turning a gun on himself. The university, backed by the Commonwealth of Virginia, is now asserting a state law that caps damage awards against the state at $100,000, as the families fight back.

Cho was a 23 year-old undergraduate student at Virginia Tech with a history of mental illness and “abnormal behavior.” His shooting spree began at about 7:15 a.m. on April 16, 2007, when he killed two students on the fourth floor of a high-rise dormitory. Cho then reportedly spent approximately two-and-a-half hours re-arming himself and mailing a package a photographs and documents to NBC News. At about 9:45 a.m., he went to a classroom building across the campus where he shot dozens of people, killing thirty, over the course of nine minutes. Cho then committed suicide when police breached the building.

Virginia Tech soon faced accusations that it negligently failed to warn students and staff after the first two murders, which allowed Cho’s rampage to proceed almost unimpeded. Police initially thought the first two deaths resulted from a “romantic dispute.” The university sent an e-mail to students and staff advising them to be cautious more than two hours later, roughly twenty minutes before Cho’s second attack began. Multiple negligence and wrongful death lawsuits followed.

The families of twenty-four of Cho’s victims, as well as eighteen people injured by the shootings, settled with the state in 2008 for $11 million. Several families refused to settle, and two of them recently went to trial.

In March 2012, a trial took place in a courtroom in Christiansburg, Virginia for the families of two victims, Erin Peterson and Julia Pryde. The university repeated many of its defenses, maintaining that officials believed Cho had fled the campus after the first two shootings, and that they did not connect the two series of shootings until later. The jury, after deliberating for just over three hours, returned a verdict finding that Virginia Tech officials were negligent in delaying warnings about the first two shootings, and that this delay directly contributed to the victims’ deaths. It awarded $4 million to each family .

Washington DC Metro Settles Seven of the Nine Wrongful Death Lawsuits Brought Over 2009 Red Line Crash

March 7, 2012 | Lebowitz & Mzhen

The Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority (WMATA) settled seven lawsuits brought by the families of people killed in a 2009 crash on the Red Line. The crash remains the deadliest accident in WMATA’s history. The exact terms of the settlement are confidential. Along with three companies that provide equipment for the train system, WMATA has admitted liability for the crash in a court document filed in mid-February. Four remaining lawsuits, two for wrongful death and two for injuries sustained in the crash, are expected to go to trial.

The crash occurred just after 5:00 p.m. on June 22, 2009. A faulty circuit in the automatic train control system failed to detect a train on the track. It directed Car 1079 into the parked train at full speed. Car 1079 was pushed up onto the other train before coming to rest. Nine passengers died in the crash, and dozens were injured.

An investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) scrutinized WMATA and the Tri-State Oversight Committee, which has responsibility for monitoring safety. The NTSB concluded that the control system’s failure directly caused the crash, and that WMATA had “failed to prioritize safety at all levels.” Multiple WMATA officials left or were reassigned. All trains have been operated manually since the crash, while they develop new safeguards.

Families of each of the nine people who died filed wrongful death lawsuits against WMATA and several of its suppliers. People who were injured in the crash also filed lawsuits to recover for their injuries. The recent settlement news resolves all but four of the lawsuits. The remaining suits are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The admissions of liability from WMATA and the other companies will make the trials go more smoothly. In a court filing, they say that they are stipulating to liability in order to “avoid the significant risks and costs” involved with a courtroom fight over the issue. The only issue for trial in the remaining cases, therefore, is the amount of compensatory damages each plaintiff should receive.

The day after the announcement of the settlements and the admission of liability, the judge presiding over the cases issued a gag order preventing the parties from discussing it publicly. A pretrial conference was reportedly scheduled for March 1. At least one of the cases, a wrongful death claim brought by the mother of victim Lavonda King, is scheduled for trial in mid-March.